The Texas Department of Transportation recently sponsored a
"Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Accommodation" workshop put on
by the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration. The course was put on for TxDOT engineers and Safety
coordinators, as well as local law enforcement officers and
transportation planners. The presenters were Dan Burden (previously
the Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator for the Florida Department of
Transportation) and Kirby Beck (Effective Cycling Instructor,
bicycle police officer from Coon Rapids, Minn., and a board member of
I.M.B.P.A.).

The three day course is an informative (if by necessity shallow)
overview of bicycle and pedestrian transportation issues. There were
many great case studies of bike paths, lanes, wide outside lanes,
tunnels, bridges, and other treatments to make cycling safer and more
convenient-- including bike helmets and "conspicuity"--I love that
word; it sounds like something my grandfather did that required him
to keep a spittoon handy. But there was an over-riding (although
beneath the surface) message that needs to be addressed.

By focusing so much attention on safety, we are communicating an
unintended message--one that has been picked up by
cycling's foes. The unintentional message that we are sending is
this: Bicycling is an unsafe activity! Add to that message our
preoccupation with expensive gadgets and highly specialized equipment
(not to mention Lycra shorts), and we are reinforcing the all too
common belief that cycling is a remote and esoteric activity.

A local city councilman, in explaining why he was voting for a
mandatory bicycle helmet ordinance for all ages, compared cycling to
sky diving! See if you can follow me on this: jumping out of a plane
a couple of miles above land and hoping that a glorified bed sheet
will stop your fall doesn't require a law making the skydiver wear a
helmet, but getting on a bicycle to ride a mile to the local 7-11
does. If that doesn't make sense to you, just look at the visual
similarity between a cyclists dressed for a winter ride and a
skydiver preparing to jump out of a plane at 20,000 feet. Goggles,
gloves, bright colors, helmet, and tight-fitting clothes are all
common between the two. But is the attitude?

I always find it ironic for a bicycle/pedestrian expert to show slide
after slide of cyclists in Europe and Asia safely using bicycles for
transportation, but who then launches into a warning about the
dangers of cycling by showing all the hazards that exist here. The
irony is compounded when they offer the magic elixir of bike safety,
the bike helmet--or as some more accurately prefer to call them, a
bicycle crash helmet. I too have been guilty of pushing bike
helmets. I won't launch into this except
to point out that the design speed of bike helmets matches the safety
requirements of life on the bike path (mirroring the conditions of
European and Asian cycling, oddly enough), not life on the streets.
If a bike helmet offered real protection from automobiles, it
wouldn't say inside it, "Not for use with motor vehicles."

The simple fact is that such a lightweight helmet (lightweight by
design and necessity) can only offer protection from low speed
crashes. Don't mistake low speed for low danger, though. At relatively
low speeds, the sudden stop caused by a head hitting a concrete curb
at only a few miles per hour can cause severe trauma to the brain.
Falling off a bike while standing still, if the head strikes a hard
surface, can be very dangerous. On rare occasions, it can even be
fatal. Very rare occasions, it turns out. But we are reacting like Death is
at our door, inviting us along on a bike ride!

If bicycling was as
dangerous as many wish us all to believe it is (cycling professionals
as well as politicians and pro-helmet activists), our political and
economic tensions with Communist China, Japan, and Asia would be
greatly reduced, because there wouldn't be anyone left to threaten us! (Perhaps
those bodies in Teinanmen were only cyclists who had died
while riding around the square).

Because the rhetoric is so intense, it's easy to be misunderstood on
this issue. But we need to look at the monster we have created in
"bike safety." I have even heard one nationally prominent cycling
advocate compare bike safety to gun safety. There we go again,
equating bicycles with life-threatening activities, when we should be
emphasizing (both to cyclists and non-cyclists) the health benefits
of cycling.

When did cycling begin to be seen as a health threat and not as a
healthy activity? In talking to some friends in the bicycle retail
industry, it seems that it was the aftermath of the 70's Energy
Crisis that sparked "the great fear." Recall how an existing bicycle
boom was fueled even faster by the gasoline price shocks.
Nationwide, people who otherwise used bicycles only to define ceiling
height in their garages began riding their bicycles to work, school,
and on errands.

Where does an inexperienced bicycle commuter ride their bike? On the
same streets that they drive their cars--it's the only route they
know. These inexperienced cyclists soon found that mixing with high
speed automobiles on multi-lane thoroughfares and on crowded, narrow
roads, wasn't much fun. It not only felt dangerous, without the
proper skills, it was dangerous.

When fuel supplies increased (and gasoline prices decreased
slightly), these people abandoned their bikes for the "safety" of
their cars. The bike boom went bust. A panicked cycling industry
began looking for reasons for the bust and identified "safety" as a
prime suspect. Two solutions were adopted; bike lanes and paths to
protect bicycles from cars, and bike helmets to protect the cyclists.

The great irony here is that "safety" didn't fuel a new cycling boom--mountain bikes did. And how have mountain bikes always been
advertised? As gonzo fun toys for death-defying, risk-takers! But
what was the real appeal? An upright, stable riding position. In a
classic marketing campaign borrowed from the automobile industry,
consumers were shown gonzo wildmen (and wildwomen) flying through
the air coming down Mt. Tam in Northern California. In the store,
however, the vast majority of consumers were buying low-pressure, fat
tired, upright riding bikes that have about as much in common with
pro racing bikes as your Chevy in the driveway has to do with a
NASCAR racer.

Do you see what we are doing? We are promoting bicycles to gentle
people by showing them how dangerous they are as part of the
advertising. Their experience is that cycling is safe and fun, but
we are telling them that it is dangerous. People all too often
believe what they are told by ad agencies more than what they learn
from experience. How many guys with beer guts and a six-pack of Bud
pick up super-models in thong bikinis? How many young women become
successful by smoking Virginia Slims? That's advertising overcoming
reality.

Here's the message we should be sending out: Cycling is practical, safe, and fun!
Very safe and very fun. Crashes happen (and can be avoided), and a
helmet is a very good safety precaution. I never leave home without
mine, because it is pretty cheap insurance. But cycling must be put
into relationship with other risks. Statistically, stairs are a far
more dangerous place than bicycles. Bathtubs are a far more
dangerous place. Jungle-Gyms? Give me a break (no pun intended).

Exactly how much more dangerous are stairs, bathtubs, swing-sets, and riding
in a car than riding a bicycle? I don't know, because the Head
Injury Prevention lobby won't release that data for fear of showing
that their demands for mandatory bicycle helmet laws are unjustified: the chairman of the local bike helmet law advocacy group withheld that information because he felt that the data would, "be used
against mandatory helmet laws."

Now repeat after me: Cycling is safe and fun, cycling is safe and fun.

That's the point that the League of American Bicyclists makes in
Effective Cycling. Effective Cycling courses teach cyclists how to
be prepared for most conditions they will meet on the road: how
to behave in traffic, how to dress for the weather (cold, rain, and
heat), how to keep your bike in good mechanical condition. These are skills that prevent
crashes, not just mitigate the danger. And perhaps more importantly,
there is no false sense of security imparted in developing Effective
Cycling skills, only the confidence gained from understanding your
environment.

Obey the laws, wear your helmet, don't be foolish (riding at night
without good lighting is about as smart as working on your toaster
without unplugging it), and have fun. Live long and prosper.